Recommended Posts

Lobbyists for "creators" threw their lot in with the giant entertainment companies and the newspaper proprietors and managed to pass the new EU Copyright Directive by a hair's-breadth this morning, in an act of colossal malpractice to harm to working artists will only be exceeded by the harm to everyone who uses the internet for everything else.

Here's what the EU voted in favour of this morning:

* Upload filters: Everything you post, from short text snippets to stills, audio, video, code, etc will be surveilled by copyright bots run by the big platforms. They'll compare your posts to databases of "copyrighted works" that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the "copyright database" is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform's human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated.

* Link taxes: You can't link to a news story if your link text includes more than a single word from the article's headline. The platform you're using has to buy a license from the news site, and news sites can refuse licenses, giving them the right to choose who can criticise and debate the news.

* Sports monopolies: You can't post any photos or videos from sports events -- not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the "organisers" of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Here's what they voted against:

* "Right of panorama": the right to post photos of public places despite the presence of copyrighted works like stock arts in advertisements, public statuary, or t-shirts bearing copyrighted images. Even the facades of buildings need to be cleared with their architects (not with the owners of the buildings).

* User generated content exemption: the right to use small excerpt from works to make memes and other critical/transformative/parodical/satirical works.

Having passed the EU Parliament, this will now be revised in secret, closed-door meetings with national governments ("the trilogues") and then voted again next spring, and then go to the national governments for implementation in law before 2021. These all represent chances to revise the law, but they will be much harder than this fight was. We can also expect lawsuits in the European high courts over these rules: spying on everyone just isn't legal under European law, even if you're doing it to "defend copyright."

In the meantime, what a disaster for creators. Not only will be we liable to having our independently produced materials arbitrarily censored by overactive filters, but we won't be able to get them unstuck without the help of big entertainment companies. These companies will not be gentle in wielding their new coercive power over us (entertainment revenues are up, but the share going to creators is down: if you think this is unrelated to the fact that there are only four or five major companies in each entertainment sector, you understand nothing about economics).

But of course, only an infinitesimal fraction of the material on the platforms is entertainment related. Your birthday wishes and funeral announcements, little league pictures and political arguments, wedding videos and online educational materials are also going to be filtered by these black-box algorithms, and you're going to have to get in line with all the other suckers for attention from a human moderator at one of the platforms to plead your case.

The entertainment industry figures who said that universal surveillance and algorithmic censorship were necessary for the continuation of copyright have done more to discredit copyright than all the pirate sites on the internet combined. People like their TV, but they use their internet for so much more.

It's like the right-wing politicians who spent 40 years describing roads, firefighting, health care, education and Social Security as "socialism," and thereby created a generation of people who don't understand why they wouldn't be socialists, then. The copyright extremists have told us that internet freedom is the same thing as piracy. A generation of proud, self-identified pirates can't be far behind. When you make copyright infringement into a political act, a blow for freedom, you sign your own artistic death-warrant.

This idiocy was only possible because:

* No one involved understands the internet: they assume that because their Facebook photos auto-tag with their friends' names, that someone can filter all the photos ever taken and determine which ones violate copyright;

* They tied mass surveillance to transferring a few mil from Big Tech to the newspaper shareholders, guaranteeing wall-to-wall positive coverage (I'm especially ashamed that journalists supported this lunacy -- we know you love free expression, folks, we just wish you'd share);

What comes next? Well, the best hope is probably a combination of a court challenge, along with making this an election issue for the 2019 EU elections. No MEP is going to campaign for re-election by saying "I did this amazing copyright thing!" From experience, I can tell you that no one cares what their lawmakers are doing with copyright.

On the other hand, there are tens of millions of voters who will vote against a candidate who "broke the internet." Not breaking the internet is veryimportant to voters, and the wider populace has proven itself to be very good at absorbing abstract technical concepts when they're tied to broken internets (87% of Americans have a) heard of Net Neutrality and; b) support it).

I was once involved in a big policy fight where one of the stakes was the possibility that broadcast TV watchers would have to buy a small device to continue watching TV. Politicians were terrified of this proposition: they knew that the same old people who vote like crazy also watch a lot of TV and wouldn't look favourably on anyone who messed with it.

We're approaching that point with the internet. The danger of internet regulation is that every problem involves the internet and every poorly thought-through "solution" ripples out through the internet, creating mass collateral damage; the power of internet regulation is that every day, more people are invested in not breaking the internet, for their own concrete, personal, vital reasons.

This isn't a fight we'll ever win. The internet is the nervous system of this century, tying together everything we do. It's an irresistible target for bullies, censors and well-intentioned fools. Even if the EU had voted the other way this morning, we'd still be fighting tomorrow, because there will never be a moment at which some half-bright, fully dangerous policy entrepreneur isn't proposing some absurd way of solving their parochial problem with a solution that will adversely affect billions of internet users around the world.

This is a fight we commit ourselves to. Today, we suffered a terrible, crushing blow. Our next move is to explain to the people who suffer as a result of the entertainment industry's depraved indifference to the consequences of their stupid ideas how they got into this situation, and get them into the streets, into the polling booths, and into the fight.

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT passed sweeping copyright legislation Wednesday that, much like its privacy regulations, could have impact far beyond Europe.

Critics argue that the most controversial part of the proposal will effectively force all but the smallest website operators to adopt "upload filters" similar to those used by YouTube, and apply them to all types of content, to stop users from uploading copyrighted works. That could pose problems, given how expensive such filters could be to develop, and the high likelihood of false positives.

The legislation will also require site owners to pay for displaying snippets of content. Critics have called this a "link tax," though links and search engine listings are exempted from the requirement.

The proposal “is likely to limit the sharing of online information,” Gus Rossi, global policy director at Public Knowledge, said in a statement. “Web services large and small might decide to implement the directive globally, which would diminish American users’ capacity to share memes, political satire, or news articles online.”

Proponents of the proposal say it's necessary to protect artists whose work is pirated online, as well as newspapers and journalists at risk of having their business models undermined by social media giants. "It’s a great day for the independent press and for democracy," a coalition for European publishers said in a statement.

The version of the legislation approved Wednesday in a 438 to 226 vote hasn't been released to the public yet, and the exact nature of the rules isn't established. The European Parliament still needs to negotiate a final version of the proposal with its co-legislator, the European Council. Then each EU member state will need to pass its own laws implementing the legislation.

Parliament rejected a previous version of the proposal in July. But EU Parliament member Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany and a vocal opponent of the legislation, says the version approved Wednesday made "nothing but cosmetic changes" to the most controversial parts of the proposal. Reda called for the parliament and the council to modify the final version of the legislation to ensure that automated filters aren’t necessary.

Traditionally, internet users are liable for the content they upload to platforms like Facebook and YouTube, not the platforms themselves. Much as in the US, the platform isn't held liable for copyright infringement or other illegal content so long as a company removes that content quickly once notified. Article 13 of the new EU legislation changes that by holding platforms directly accountable for the content they host, with a few exceptions. That means publishing platforms like Medium and WordPress would be on the hook to make sure the text that users post doesn’t violate copyrights, and photo-sharing sites like Instagram would have to watch for copyrighted images. Previously published versions of the proposal, as well as proposed amendments, specify that small businesses are exempt from the rules, along with certain types of sites, such as open-source code-hosting platforms and free online encyclopedias.

Article 11 of the proposal, meanwhile, would mandate that sites such as Facebook and Twitter that share snippets of content either pay the publishers of that content or limit the text used in links to a few “individual words.”

Although published versions of the proposal don't explicitly require companies to adopt automatic filtering technology, critics argue that placing responsibility for policing content on platforms amounts to a de facto requirement for filters. Although the rules would only apply inside the EU, it's possible that companies would apply filters globally, just as some companies are complying with EU privacy regulations even outside of Europe.

Earlier this year, more than 70 internet pioneers, including web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales signed an open letter opposing the proposal. The letter argues that automated filters are not reliable and that the internet could not have developed as it has if Article 13 had been in effect 25 years ago.

In a statement Wednesday, a Google spokesperson said, “People want access to quality news and creative content online. We’ve always said that more innovation and collaboration are the best way to achieve a sustainable future for the European news and creative sectors, and we’re committed to continued close partnership with these industries.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Even the best filtering systems are not perfect. YouTube has removed videos erroneously; in other cases, companies or individuals have used copyright takedown notices to silence critics.

Earlier this year, the legislation’s sponsor, European Parliament member Axel Voss of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, told WIRED that while the proposal isn't perfect, it's better than the existing system of allowing big tech companies to profit from ads run alongside material that infringes on others’ copyrights.

Bringing the likes of Google and Facebook to heel has been a major priority for European governments in recent years. In addition to its sweeping privacy rules and the "right to be forgotten," the EU imposed hefty antitrust fines on Google and sent Apple a $14.5 billion tax bill. Germany passed a law ordering social media companies to delete hate speech within 24 hours of it being published.

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT passed sweeping copyright legislation Wednesday that, much like its privacy regulations, could have impact far beyond Europe.

Critics argue that the most controversial part of the proposal will effectively force all but the smallest website operators to adopt "upload filters" similar to those used by YouTube, and apply them to all types of content, to stop users from uploading copyrighted works. That could pose problems, given how expensive such filters could be to develop, and the high likelihood of false positives.

The legislation will also require site owners to pay for displaying snippets of content. Critics have called this a "link tax," though links and search engine listings are exempted from the requirement.

The proposal “is likely to limit the sharing of online information,” Gus Rossi, global policy director at Public Knowledge, said in a statement. “Web services large and small might decide to implement the directive globally, which would diminish American users’ capacity to share memes, political satire, or news articles online.”

Proponents of the proposal say it's necessary to protect artists whose work is pirated online, as well as newspapers and journalists at risk of having their business models undermined by social media giants. "It’s a great day for the independent press and for democracy," a coalition for European publishers said in a statement.

The version of the legislation approved Wednesday in a 438 to 226 vote hasn't been released to the public yet, and the exact nature of the rules isn't established. The European Parliament still needs to negotiate a final version of the proposal with its co-legislator, the European Council. Then each EU member state will need to pass its own laws implementing the legislation.

Parliament rejected a previous version of the proposal in July. But EU Parliament member Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany and a vocal opponent of the legislation, says the version approved Wednesday made "nothing but cosmetic changes" to the most controversial parts of the proposal. Reda called for the parliament and the council to modify the final version of the legislation to ensure that automated filters aren’t necessary.

Traditionally, internet users are liable for the content they upload to platforms like Facebook and YouTube, not the platforms themselves. Much as in the US, the platform isn't held liable for copyright infringement or other illegal content so long as a company removes that content quickly once notified. Article 13 of the new EU legislation changes that by holding platforms directly accountable for the content they host, with a few exceptions. That means publishing platforms like Medium and WordPress would be on the hook to make sure the text that users post doesn’t violate copyrights, and photo-sharing sites like Instagram would have to watch for copyrighted images. Previously published versions of the proposal, as well as proposed amendments, specify that small businesses are exempt from the rules, along with certain types of sites, such as open-source code-hosting platforms and free online encyclopedias.

Article 11 of the proposal, meanwhile, would mandate that sites such as Facebook and Twitter that share snippets of content either pay the publishers of that content or limit the text used in links to a few “individual words.”

Although published versions of the proposal don't explicitly require companies to adopt automatic filtering technology, critics argue that placing responsibility for policing content on platforms amounts to a de facto requirement for filters. Although the rules would only apply inside the EU, it's possible that companies would apply filters globally, just as some companies are complying with EU privacy regulations even outside of Europe.

Earlier this year, more than 70 internet pioneers, including web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales signed an open letter opposing the proposal. The letter argues that automated filters are not reliable and that the internet could not have developed as it has if Article 13 had been in effect 25 years ago.

In a statement Wednesday, a Google spokesperson said, “People want access to quality news and creative content online. We’ve always said that more innovation and collaboration are the best way to achieve a sustainable future for the European news and creative sectors, and we’re committed to continued close partnership with these industries.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Even the best filtering systems are not perfect. YouTube has removed videos erroneously; in other cases, companies or individuals have used copyright takedown notices to silence critics.

Earlier this year, the legislation’s sponsor, European Parliament member Axel Voss of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, told WIRED that while the proposal isn't perfect, it's better than the existing system of allowing big tech companies to profit from ads run alongside material that infringes on others’ copyrights.

Bringing the likes of Google and Facebook to heel has been a major priority for European governments in recent years. In addition to its sweeping privacy rules and the "right to be forgotten," the EU imposed hefty antitrust fines on Google and sent Apple a $14.5 billion tax bill. Germany passed a law ordering social media companies to delete hate speech within 24 hours of it being published.

You do realize that if these new laws stick, you, as site owner, could get billed/fined from people posting links/articles/memes, etc here, right?

Share on other sites

Uhm, yes, it actually does. The platform (essentially you as site owner) would have to pay/buy licensing in order to have articles and links of copyrighted material on your site.

Traditionally, internet users are liable for the content they upload to platforms like Facebook and YouTube, not the platforms themselves. Much as in the US, the platform isn't held liable for copyright infringement or other illegal content so long as a company removes that content quickly once notified. Article 13 of the new EU legislation changes that by holding platforms directly accountable for the content they host, with a few exceptions. That means publishing platforms like Medium and WordPress would be on the hook to make sure the text that users post doesn’t violate copyrights, and photo-sharing sites like Instagram would have to watch for copyrighted images. Previously published versions of the proposal, as well as proposed amendments, specify that small businesses are exempt from the rules, along with certain types of sites, such as open-source code-hosting platforms and free online encyclopedias.

Article 11 of the proposal, meanwhile, would mandate that sites such as Facebook and Twitter that share snippets of content either pay the publishers of that content or limit the text used in links to a few “individual words.”

Upload filters: Everything you post, from short text snippets to stills, audio, video, code, etc will be surveilled by copyright bots run by the big platforms. They'll compare your posts to databases of "copyrighted works" that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the "copyright database" is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform's human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated.

* Link taxes: You can't link to a news story if your link text includes more than a single word from the article's headline. The platform you're using has to buy a license from the news site, and news sites can refuse licenses, giving them the right to choose who can criticise and debate the news.

* Sports monopolies: You can't post any photos or videos from sports events -- not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the "organisers" of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Uhm, yes, it actually does. The platform (essentially you as site owner) would have to pay/buy licensing in order to have articles and links of copyrighted material on your site.

Traditionally, internet users are liable for the content they upload to platforms like Facebook and YouTube, not the platforms themselves. Much as in the US, the platform isn't held liable for copyright infringement or other illegal content so long as a company removes that content quickly once notified. Article 13 of the new EU legislation changes that by holding platforms directly accountable for the content they host, with a few exceptions. That means publishing platforms like Medium and WordPress would be on the hook to make sure the text that users post doesn’t violate copyrights, and photo-sharing sites like Instagram would have to watch for copyrighted images. Previously published versions of the proposal, as well as proposed amendments, specify that small businesses are exempt from the rules, along with certain types of sites, such as open-source code-hosting platforms and free online encyclopedias.

Article 11 of the proposal, meanwhile, would mandate that sites such as Facebook and Twitter that share snippets of content either pay the publishers of that content or limit the text used in links to a few “individual words.”

Upload filters: Everything you post, from short text snippets to stills, audio, video, code, etc will be surveilled by copyright bots run by the big platforms. They'll compare your posts to databases of "copyrighted works" that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the "copyright database" is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform's human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated.

* Link taxes: You can't link to a news story if your link text includes more than a single word from the article's headline. The platform you're using has to buy a license from the news site, and news sites can refuse licenses, giving them the right to choose who can criticise and debate the news.

* Sports monopolies: You can't post any photos or videos from sports events -- not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the "organisers" of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Other than text, nothing is uploaded on this forum. We don't host anything. Moreover, the new regulations are to intended for large operators. We certainly would qualify as a small business if one wanted to examine our financials. And again, there's the issue of jurisdiction. I comply with Canadian copyright laws and until such time that laws formulated in another land are applicable to me personally or my businesses I'm not going to worry about it.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Other than text, nothing is uploaded on this forum. We don't host anything. Moreover, the new regulations are to intended for large operators. We certainly would qualify as a small business if one wanted to examine our financials. And again, there's the issue of jurisdiction. I comply with Canadian copyright laws and until such time that laws formulated in another land are applicable to me personally or my businesses I'm not going to worry about it.

I doubt the law will stand....it's only starting to gain publicity now...once the majority of the general public becomes aware of it, good chance it gets thrown out....or at least gets reduced to something like major copyright violations, minimal filters, etc.

Anyway, I doubt you would pay any bills/fines that were sent to you by the European Union anyway....

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I doubt the law will stand....it's only starting to gain publicity now...once the majority of the general public becomes aware of it, good chance it gets thrown out....or at least gets reduced to something like major copyright violations, minimal filters, etc.

Anyway, I doubt you would pay any bills/fines that were sent to you by the European Union anyway....

I would file them in the same place I get C&D orders from dipshit idiots who like to waste their spare time by pulling down YouTube videos

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Or we could just stop being such a bunch of wankers and just stay in the EU.

Is that really viable though at this point? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but its reasonably unprescedented innit, something being democratically voted for and then the establishment going 'actually, nah, fuck that, you lot dunno what you're chattin' about' I honestly don't have an opinion on Brexit because I don't think I know enough to rightly say which one is better or worse but how do you back out of a democratically voted for thingie?

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The EU is not to be trusted. Consolidation of power is consolidation of corruption and bureaucracy. Without voluntary, sovereign, cooperation any agreement or alliance is no such thing. Just a miserable damning slog put in motion to enslave and control.

The EU openly admits that its ultimate goal is a one world government. That's a fucking horrendous idea concocted by nothing less than evil and unforgivable stupidity.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Is that really viable though at this point? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but its reasonably unprescedented innit, something being democratically voted for and then the establishment going 'actually, nah, fuck that, you lot dunno what you're chattin' about' I honestly don't have an opinion on Brexit because I don't think I know enough to rightly say which one is better or worse but how do you back out of a democratically voted for thingie?

They couldn't give a shit. Its not like anyone is gonna do anything if they back out.